Hearing Statement
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Matter 2: The Evidence Base (30th June 09) Matter 3 and 4: Spatial Strategy (Policy SS1) (1st July 09) Matter 5: Policy CP10 (7th July 09)
Representation ID Ref: 186922
June 2009
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
Quality Assurance
Site name: Client name: Type of report: Childerhouse Lodge Farms
Prepared by:
John Long BA (Hons) Dip TP, MRTPI
Signed Date Reviewed by:
____________________________________________________ 12th June 2009 Rebecca Rejzek
Signed Date
____________________________________________________ 12th June 2009
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
Table of Contents
1 2 3 4
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 PART 1 – STONE CURLEW WEETING ............................................................................ 2 PART 2 – WEETING'S ROLE IN THE CORE STRATEGY'S SPATIAL STRATEGY ....... 3 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 6
Appendices
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Original Representation Comments on Revised Policy CP10 Stone Curlew at Weeting Report
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
1 1.1
INTRODUCTION
This Hearing Statement has been prepared by Bidwells and Aurum Ecology (John Goldsmith), on behalf of Robert Childerhouse. It relates to representations submitted by Childerhouse Lodge Farms to the submission version of the Core Strategy (ID Number: 186922; Comment ID numbers: 68 and 67; and also comments made on the post submission changes to Core Strategy Policy CP10, proposed by Breckland District Council (refs sent by e-mail 8/6/09). The original representation is included at Appendix A. The comments on the revised Policy CP10 are included at Appendix B.
1.2
It further substantiates the case that the Breckland Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Proposed Submission Document (the Core Strategy) has inappropriately excluded Weeting as a settlement capable of accommodating growth at any time during the plan period, irrespective of the potential to overcome the reason for its late exclusion i.e. the potential to demonstrate that development at Weeting does not affect stone curlew distribution/SPA, or that any adverse impact can be mitigated.
1.3
As such the Core Strategy's soundness is called into question. In particular, it is contended that the Council's late decision to exclude Weeting as a location capable of accommodating growth has not been founded on a robust and credible evidence base; that it is not the most appropriate strategy after considering the reasonable alternatives; and that it does not demonstrate a sufficient level of flexibility.
1.4
It is argued that a non substantive change can be made to the Core Strategy to address these failures, and introduce the necessary flexibility to enable Weeting to be considered a suitable location for growth, should evidence be provided that development would not have an adverse impact on the stone curlew distribution/SPA, or that any adverse impact can be mitigated.
1.5
The Hearing Statement is relevant to the following Inspector's Matters and Questions:
Matter 2 – Justification – The evidence base
Has a Habitat Regulations Assessment been carried out? Is it sufficiently comprehensive and are there any outstanding and unresolved queries?
Matter 3 and 4 – Spatial Strategy – Policy SS1
Is the proposed settlement hierarchy soundly based and properly integrated into the overall spatial strategy for the area?
1
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
Have the right settlements been identified/chosen within the proposed hierarchy? Is the overall balance of growth between identified settlements clearly founded on the evidence base and likely to be effective with reference to the following levels: (d) Local Service Centre Villages How well does the strategy provide for the sustainable development of the rural areas?
Matter 5 – Environment and Landscape Policies CP10
Does the evidence base justify the approach to habitat and species protection? Is there sufficient flexibility between the protection of environmental interests and consequences arising form implementation of the spatial strategy? Are the introduction of buffer zones in policy CP10 necessary? The Hearing Statement attempts addresses issues raised 1.6 The Hearing Statement is in 2 parts. The first part provides further information on the
evidence related to stone curlew distribution at Weeting. The second part is concerned with Weeting's position in the Spatial Strategy, the implications of the proposed modifications to Policy CP10 in respect of Weeting, and the implications for the Core Strategy's soundness. The Hearing Statement concludes with a summary of the case and suggested non-substantive changes to the Core Strategy to make it sound. 2 2.1
PART 1 – STONE CURLEW WEETING
The Stone Curlew at Weeting Report (Aurum Ecology, June 2009 – Appendix C), explains some of the short comings in the Stone Curlew report prepared by Footprint Ecology, which underpins the SPA/Stone Curlew buffer zone designation. It is contended that some of the Footprint Ecology conclusions appear to be opinion rather than fact, and not field tested in the Breckland context. Furthermore, it mixes issues of public access with housing and roads using yet to be tested statistics.
2.2
The Stone Curlew at Weeting Report (Aurum Ecology) demonstrates through observation and summary why the land at Weeting in terms of soil type and features is not a suitable location for Stone Curlew.
2.3
The Stone Curlew at Weeting Report (Aurum Ecology) concludes that the boundary of the SPA and buffer zone is an entirely artificial boundary and bears no real affinity with the
2
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
species it supposedly protects. The report acknowledges the need for further work in respect of Stone Curlew at Weeting to provide scientific fact, rather than just opinion. 2.4 The general conclusion is that the Council's evidence of the impact of growth at Weeting on Stone Curlew distribution is less than robust and inconclusive. Further work is required to demonstrate one way or another whether growth at Weeting will have any impact on Stone Curlew distribution. Due to the late changes to the policy there has been insufficient time to obtain this more detailed factual evidence. 3 3.1
PART 2 – WEETING'S ROLE IN THE CORE STRATEGY'S SPATIAL STRATEGY
Weeting is identified in the Core Strategy as a Service Centre Village. That is to say it is acknowledged that the village already includes the core services and facilities necessary to meet the needs of its residents. Weeting is one of 14 Service Centre Villages. A number of them have been attributed a positive level of growth in the Core Strategy, from 50 to 100 new dwellings. Weeting does not currently have a positive housing allocation for the remaining
plan period (although it is acknowledged that there may be some limited growth from existing commitments), although it was proposed to have at least 50 homes allocated in previous versions of the Core Strategy, including the Preferred Options (2008). 3.2 Weeting's exclusion as a growth location was a late change to the Core Strategy. In previous iterations of the document, including the Preferred Options (2008), Weeting was identified as a suitable location to accommodate at least 50 new homes, to help meet some of the housing needs in the area. The Housing Needs Study shows that only a small proportion of the affordable housing need (15%) is met through the supply of homes in the Weeting and surrounding area (the Rural South West). There is also a shortfall (20%) in the supply of market homes in the same area. 3.3 The village already includes the majority of the services and facilities indicated by the East of England Plan (RSS) and Core Strategy as being important components of a Local Service Centre. It is acknowledged that Weeting does not include a doctor's surgery, but health facilities are available nearby at Brandon (less than 2km away) and accessible by public transport. In previous versions of the Core Strategy the lack of a doctor's surgery was not seen as a fundamental barrier to the identification of the village as a Local Service Centre. It is contended that doctor's surgeries are not normally day-to-day destinations of residents, unlike shops and schools and the fact that such facilities are easily accessible at Brandon means Weeting's lack of surgery does not undermine its role as a Local Service Centre.
3
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
3.4
The Local Service Centres Paper (Breckland District Council, 2008) confirms the level of services and infrastructure capacity available to accommodate growth at Weeting. The paper also confirms local Parish Council support for growth at Weeting.
3.5
In summary, until very recently and very late on in the Core Strategy process, the Council considered that given the need for new homes in the area and the level of facilities and services at Weeting (or easily accessible from Weeting) and the local support for growth, that the village should be given a positive allocation of housing of at least 50 homes to help contribute to meeting the area's housing needs in a way that could be sustained by the existing services and facilities.
3.6
However, following the publication of the Stone Curlew Report (Footprint Ecology) late in 2008, which suggested that because of the potential impact development could have on stone curlew distribution, that new homes may need to be 1500 metres from stone curlew nesting sites in order not to effect their distribution; the Council introduced a 1500 metre SPA buffer zone into the Core Strategy. For information, the buffer zone extends from the edge of the SPA, not necessarily the edge of the stone curlew nesting areas. The buffer zone was a new concept and one that was not subject to wider consultation or rigorous testing before its introduction.
3.7
The buffer zone has been applied on a blanket basis and includes Weeting wholly within in. The result of the imposition was that Weeting was excluded from the Core Strategy's Spatial Strategy as a location capable of accommodating growth.
3.8
This is confirmed in the Sustainability Appraisal, which suggests that: "….Weeting will now not see a positive allocation for housing as the village is entirely within the 1500m buffer zone around the Special Protection Area with stone curlews…". Importantly, the Sustainability
Appraisal would seem to suggest that there are no other reasons why Weeting should lose its positive allocation for housing. 3.9 The submission Core Strategy document was subsequently changed to remove reference to the positive allocation of homes at Weeting in the Spatial Strategy (SS1) and the reference to "50 homes at Weeting" was deleted from Policy CP1.
Implications of the Core Strategy's (Spatial Strategy and Policy CP1 (Housing)) changes on Weeting
3.10 The result of the late policy change is that potential development sites at Weeting already being promoted through the Site Allocations DPD would now be automatically considered contrary to the Core Strategy, irrespective of whether or not it can be demonstrated through
4
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
robust and credible evidence (Appropriate Assessment) that there is an impact on the stone curlew, or that the adverse impact could be mitigated. 3.11 Childerhouse Lodge Farms made the appropriate representations to the Core Strategy in February 2008 (see appendix A).
Suggested modifications to Policy CP10 (Natural Environment), concerning development in the 1500m buffer zone.
3.12 Childerhouse Lodge Farms contend that the Council's proposed modifications to Policy CP10 (Natural Environment) are relevant to Weeting for the following reasons: 3.13 The original submission version of Policy CP10 (Natural Environment) proposed limiting development within the 1500m buffer zone to: a) the re-use of existing buildings; and b) where existing development completely masks the new proposal from the Breckland SPA. 3.14 The wording of this version of Policy CP10 was considered "clumsy" by the Council, and did not reflect the Council's aspirations for its implementation. To overcome this "clumsiness", the Council has recently proposed further modifications to Policy CP10 (see appendix D). The changes have the effect of introducing some flexibility into the consideration and determination of planning proposals within the 1500m buffer zone. 3.15 In effect, the modified Policy CP10, would provide the Council with a policy framework to consider positively, proposals for 'other development' (i.e. other than re-use of existing buildings and development which would be completely masked from the SPA by existing development) in the 1500m buffer zone, provided that it can be demonstrated by an appropriate assessment that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. 3.16 Also, the modified Policy CP10 would provide the Council with a policy framework to grant planning permission for development where any adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA or qualifying features can be mitigated and provided that the mitigation measures are reasonably capable of implementation. 3.17 The policy's supporting text describes the anticipated permissible development to include 'green infrastructure and other developments', i.e. other than re-use of existing buildings and development completely masked from the SPA by existing development. 3.18 In other words, where evidence demonstrates that development (in the planning sense of the word) does not have an adverse impact on stone curlews/SPA, or where any adverse affect can be mitigated, planning permission can be granted, subject to the other policies of the plan.
5
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
3.19
Childerhouse Lodge Farms welcomes and supports the additional flexibility proposed in the Council's proposed modifications to Policy CP10, and agree that it can be introduced as a non-substantive change to the plan.
Implications of proposed modifications to Policy CP10 for Weeting
3.20 Childerhouse Lodge Farms contends that the principle behind the proposed modifications to Policy CP10, i.e. to provide clarity on the Council's anticipated flexibility in determining proposals in the 1500m buffer zone, should be applied to Weeting's position in the Spatial Strategy. There is no reason why it should not, particularly as the evidence underpinning Weeting's exclusion as a growth location is inconclusive. 4 4.1
CONCLUSION
It is demonstrated in Section 1 of this Hearing Statement, that the evidence of the potential impact of development at Weeting on stone curlew distribution is currently inconclusive. It is simply not known for certain, one way or another whether development will have an impact on stone curlew's distribution, or whether any adverse impact can be mitigated.
4.2
It is demonstrated in Section 2, that stone curlew issues aside, Weeting is still an appropriate location for housing growth of at least 50 homes. This has previously been accepted by Breckland District Council and the local Parish Council. The reason for Weeting's exclusion as a growth location was related to one issue; because it was wholly included in the SPA's 1500m buffer zone; not because there is incontrovertible evidence to show that development at Weeting will have an impact on stone curlew distribution. This information is simply not yet known. There has been insufficient time to commission and obtain this very detailed
information. 4.3 Childerhouse Lodge Farms can accept that until the evidence of impact on stone curlew distribution is known for certain, that the Core Strategy will follow the precautionary principle and not specify a positive level of housing in Policy CP1, in case it proves to be undeliverable. 4.4 However, Childerhouse Lodge Farms contends that until there is incontrovertible evidence that development would have an adverse impact, and that the adverse impact could not be mitigated, the Core Strategy should not close the door to growth at Weeting during the plan period and that provision should be made to provide a policy framework that would allow for the allocation and permission of housing at Weeting, if it can be demonstrated through an appropriate assessment that development would not have an impact on the distribution of stone curlew, or that any adverse impact can be mitigated.
6
Childerhouse Lodge Farms Hearing Statement
4.5
Childerhouse Lodge Farms contends that the Site Specific Allocations DPD process will be the appropriate vehicle to consider the detailed evidence and determine the level and location of any allocation at Weeting, where evidence can be provided to demonstrate that development would not have an impact on the distribution of stone curlew, or that any adverse impact can be mitigated (i.e. in line with the principles underpinning the proposed modifications to Policy CP10).
4.6
Childerhouse Lodge Farms contend that any housing at Weeting will be considered extra to that identified in Policy CP1 and contribute to the extra 3000 housing units anticipated to come forward as windfall at Local Service Centres over the LDF period, in line with Core Strategy paragraph 3.6.
Suggested Change
4.7 Childerhouse Lodge Farms suggest the following changes should be made: A footnote should be added to Policy SS1 along the lines of: "…Weeting is currently not given a positive housing allocation, because it is not yet known for certain whether or not new development at the village will have an impact on stone curlew distribution, or whether any adverse impact could be mitigated. However, should evidence be provided through an appropriate assessment that demonstrates growth at Weeting would not adversely impact on stone curlew distribution, or any adverse impact can be mitigated, then a housing allocation/planning application at the village will be considered acceptable, to reflect its identification as a Service Centre Village and the local support for growth. The location and level of growth will be determined through the Site Allocations DPD process or the consideration of planning proposals. The level of growth will be in addition to the housing numbers set out in policy CP1 and considered as windfall." 4.8 Childerhouse Lodge Farms contend that without the suggested change above, or something similar, the Core Strategy is unsound because the approach to Weeting in the Spatial Strategy (SS1) and CP1 (housing) is not based on robust and credible evidence, that it is not the most appropriate strategy after considering the reasonable alternatives; and that it does not demonstrate a sufficient level of flexibility.
7